Feinstein’s Gun Ban Goes Down 40-60 After She Scolds Colleagues

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) chided her colleagues for shooting down gun control amendments before her assault weapons ban renewal met the same fate.

It failed 40-60, with both red-state and blue-state Democrats voting against the ban.

Feinstein expressed “substantial dismay at the lack of courage in this house” at the day’s votes, which included the 54-46 failure of the Manchin-Toomey amendment on background checks.

“We have had enough of the development of highly militarized weapons,” she said. “Everything needs 60 votes today — this is supposed to be a majority body.”

Ironically, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) likely didn’t seek a unanimous consent agreement for a simple majority because he feared gun-rights amendments would get attached to his bill. Reid also angered Feinstein by not rolling her assault weapons bill into his gun-control package.

More Democrats have come to the gun-rights side throughout the afternoon’s votes than Republicans siding with gun control measures.

However, Feinstein’s amendment still would have fallen far short of the simple majority threshold.

“I know how this is going to end and the despair and dismay of those families… I am really chagrined and concerned,” Feinstein continued. “…Show some guts!”

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), though, rose to defend Second Amendment rights in an equally impassioned tone, slamming Feinstein’s amendment as the “largest ban of guns in the history of our republic.”

“It did not stop Columbine; it would not stop Newtown,” Grassley said. “Criminals who steal such guns would not care if they were banned.”

As the ranking member on the Judiciary Committee, Grassley had asked for analysis of the constitutional ramifications of the assault weapons ban from the Justice Department but did not receive a response.

Based on Supreme Court precedent, he said, “they cannot be banned.”

Grassely warned “this is a slippery slope” of yielding more and more constitutional rights.

Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) was among the “no” votes. “In carefully studying the language of this specific assault weapons ban, it became clear that it went too far because it also would have banned certain hunting rifles and even some shotguns,” he said. “And there was no opportunity to amend this legislation to make it work for Colorado sportsmen.”

UPDATE: Feinstein after her 20-point defeat: “I’m disappointed by today’s vote, but I always knew this was an uphill battle. I believe the American people are far ahead of their elected officials on this issue, and I will continue to fight for a renewed ban on assault weapons,” she said.

“The very fact that we’re debating gun violence on the Senate floor is a step in the right direction, and I hope my colleagues vote their conscience and approve the underlying bill. But I’m certain that in the coming months and years, we will be forced to confront other incidents like Newtown, where innocents are murdered with one of these weapons of war.”

Bridget Johnson is a veteran journalist whose news articles and opinion columns have run in dozens of news outlets across the globe. Bridget first came to Washington to be online editor at The Hill, where she wrote The World from The Hill column on foreign policy. Previously she was an opinion writer and editorial board member at the Rocky Mountain News and nation/world news columnist at the Los Angeles Daily News.
She is an NPR contributor and has contributed to USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, Politico and more, and has myriad television and radio credits as a commentator. Bridget is Washington Editor for PJ Media.

I sure am tired of hearing and reading that AR-15s are "weapons of war." To the best of my knowledge, no national military currently uses semiautomatic rifles. They use submachine guns. AR's LOOK like M-16's. Civilian AKs LOOK like military AK-47s. ARs cannot be used to hunt deer in most states because they aren't powerful enough. I have a semiautomatic Remington 742 in 30.06 caliber that IS legal for hunting deer. It is much more powerful than a .223. It would not be effected by the "assault weapons" ban, although you CAN get a magazine larger than the 4 round one it came with. But, it doesn't LOOK all scary like an AR does.

I don't need a person that gets a concealed carry permit, when others can't to tell me how to protect myself and family, and to try and impose he dictatorial powers onto disarming those citizens that do need the ability to defend themselves, knowing full well that when a life hangs in the balance of seconds, 911 is minutes away, and much longer if you live in cities such as Detroit, or other cities facing fiscal crisis because of Democrat fiscal irresponsiblity.

Our glorious leader is all for arming the Muslim Brotherhood with free F-16's. An organization that has been associated with anti-American policies. He doesn't want American citizens to be able to protect their families. Feinstein wants to ban firearms that are scary looking, because of womething she witnessed many years ago that involved a murder with a handgun, how does that have any bearing on justifying the ban? She has a concealed weapons carry permit, but the majority of lawful California citizens aren't permitted the same privelege. She wants to ban firearms that aren't used in most gun crimes. Logic isn't a strong suit for the elitist class to which she belongs.....

We're faced with Capital T terrorism, savage assorted nuts shooting our school children, Feinstein, Reid and the worst President in the history of this nation, Barry Obama, contributor of U.S. tax dollars to his favorite charity, the Muslim Brotherhood.

Together, these briny, posturing, peccadilloes of government are guiding us in every wrong direction, all headed for every metaphorical cliff around.

Deter kid killing by putting armed guards in schools. Never.

Arm the CIA, FBI and homeland security with competent, dedicated patriots who'll eat, breathe and sleep the job of protecting the United States. Never.

Load key positions with Barney Franks approved political hacks and every manner of blame-America-first mentalities. Always.

I know. I know. We vote these pukes in so we're responsible. But only to a point. Where our elected representatives abrogate they're sworn duties; when they clearly abrogate their oaths of office, they lose their right to lead. They de facto resign from the job.

I'm resigned to advise Americans that the miscreants I named intend only ill for the United States. They feel no allegiance to the nation or its legal citizens. Everything they're committed to either involves the people giving up rights or putting the citizens in positions of peril, most notably trashing the second amendment; putting armed guards only where their own children attend school while driving up a debt that's driving this nation over its own financial cliff.

Make no mistake, America's leadership is waging a multi-pronged attack on America. And the mainstream media are they're cheerleaders. They have no purpose, but to help destroy every value this nation has held dear. Report on a mass baby killer: never. Support baby killing: always.

One of the scariest facts: if North Korea, or any evil regime for that matter, launched any kind of attack, nuclear or not, on allies of America or this nation itself, the cool one, Obama, would do nothing but talk.

If Obama got up in front on Congress on December 2, 1941, it would have been a tragic day in the history of this great nation. I can imagine the pap it would have produced. In four years, we'd have been speaking German, the language of death.

Feinstein expressed “substantial dismay at the lack of courage" of her opponents? Quelle surprise!

These flea-bitten guttersnipes on the left can never argue substantively, can they? They can never produce a political, or social, or logical argument. It's always character assassination.

They always say in effect, "We're better than you, because we favor this policy." EVERY TIME. And their policies are pernicious, just as they are pernicious. Their insane plans for this country can't be defended logically, so they always strike that holier-than-thou pose.

This Feinstein is the little birdbrained autocrat who helped block a bill to give relief (and water!) to the farmers being ruined by the Delta Smelt controversy. So she's a nasty little tyrant herself. Don't lecture us, Evita. .

" But I’m certain that in the coming months and years, we will be forced to confront other incidents like Newtown, where innocents are murdered with one of these weapons of war."

Well, Ms. Feinstein, evidence is showing the bombs used recently at the Boston Marathon were constructed using pressure cookers. Shouldn't you begin the process to ban pressure cookers? You know, "if it saves ones life" and all that.

Easy now. The last thing we need is to encourage the Federal goverment to force individual States to do anything. Fact is that the only hope that we may have for beating back an out-of-control Federal government is for the States to remain the independent entities that the Founders wanted.

It seems a slippery slope I know, but the second and Tenth amendments taken together in their original intents means the states have no constitutional authority to pass laws that the constitution covers. The Second amendment says our right to keep and bear arms Shall Not Be Infringed.

States are in opposition to the constitution when they pass draconian gun laws.

As little as I like it, the Federal Government has the constitutional obligation to insure no states are violating any of the constitution, including the Second amendment.

2 years ago

Report Abuse

2 years agoEditLink To Comment• Report Abuse

This comment has been reported.
Click here
to view it anyway.

1
2
3Next View All

... (show more)

Update CommentCancel

One Trackback to “Feinstein’s Gun Ban Goes Down 40-60 After She Scolds Colleagues”